On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:46:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what
> >> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows.
> > By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real
> > work'.   Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow
> > arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity
> > API ever made ever.
> [ shrug... ]  So use dblink.

Not with a non-PostgreSQL data source.

> For better or worse, the FDW stuff is following the SQL standard's
> SQL/MED design, which does not do it like that.

What SQL/MED specifies along this line is purely a caution against
making a specification without a reference implementation.  If I'm
reading it correctly, it's literally impossible to make what they
suggest safe.

Given those givens, we're free to do this in a way that's not
barking-at-the-moon crazy.  At least two inter-database communication
links which work with PostgreSQL do this..

David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to